Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ram Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another - Respondents
Cr. MP(M) No. 310 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75, 78, 64(2), and 351(2) - Petition for regular bail - Petitioner claimed innocence and argued he was falsely implicated; victim's affidavit indicated desire to withdraw complaint - Serious allegations of harassment and threats were made by the victim - Court considered parameters for bail as per Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the nature of the accusations - Petitioner had no criminal antecedents and the trial was not likely to conclude soon - Bail granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 9, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for multiple offences under BNS. The victim alleged harassment via social media and physical threats, later expressing a desire to withdraw the complaint. They were married, complicating claims of coercion.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the victim's changing statements, lack of evidence of guilt, and the absence of criminal history for the petitioner, concluding that detention was unnecessary.
Issues: The court addressed the credibility of the victim's allegations and the implications of the relationship between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity of reasonable conditions for bail, the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioner, and the importance of ensuring justice without compromising the rights of the accused.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 208 of 2024, dated 2.9.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 75, 78, 64(2) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim filed an affidavit before the police on 27.3.2024 stating that the petitioner used to harass her on Facebook Messenger. She was assured by the petitioner not to do so, hence, she wanted to withdraw the complaint filed by her. Subsequently, she filed the present FIR. The petitioner and victim are married and the petitioner could not have entered into a physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner is aged 39 years. His family is dependent upon him. The investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim came out of her home on 1.9.2024 at about 11.00 PM. The petitioner had concealed himself in the vicinity. He caught hold of the victim. She cried for help. Her husband and her nephew reached the spot. The petitioner ran away from the spot. He called the victim’s nephew and threatened to kill him. The petitioner used to send messages to the victim since 2020. The victim used to talk to him as the petitioner and the victim are resident of the same village. The petitioner also threatened to drown the victim in the lake. Once the petitioner made a call to the victim in the presence of her husband and the matter was reported to the police. However, it was compromised with the intervention of the local people. The petitioner undertook not to harass the victim but he failed to honour his promise and he continued to harass her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim made a statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) asserting that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with her from February/March 2020 till February 2024. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner led the police to the places where he had harassed the victim and maintained sexual relations with her. The police seized the articles and the mobile phone of the petitioner. The mobile phone was found to be factory reset on 9.4.2024 and no obscene material was found in it. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The matter was listed on 12.3.2025 for consideration on charge. Hence the status report.
3 . I have heard M/s Hemant Vaid and Yudhveer Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr Hemant Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim had made a complaint against the petitioner in March 2024 in which no allegation of rape was made. She also made a complaint in September 2024 but did not state anything about the commission of rape. She made a statement regarding the rape for the first time when her statement was recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. The plea that the petitioner had maintained sexual relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage is not acceptable because the parties are already married and could not have married each other without getting a divorce. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and he is accused of committing a heinous crime which affects the society at large. The petitioner had threatened the victim an
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate serious allegations, and the accused's rights must be balanced with the need for justice.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the accused's community ties and the nature of the allegations, not solely on the seriousness of the charges.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the nature of accusations, the gravity of the offence, and the risk of witness tampering, while ensuring conditions facilitate justice.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like abetting rape, considering the gravity of the crime and potential influence on the victim.
The court emphasized that insufficient evidence and the nature of the accusations justified granting bail, with conditions to ensure the accused's presence during trial.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the credibility of allegations and the necessity to prevent witness tampering, establishing stringent conditions for the accused.
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
The court emphasized that in serious criminal cases, particularly involving sexual offences, the gravity of the allegations and potential witness tampering are critical factors in bail considerations....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
